Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Trump immunity case: Supreme Court rules ex-presidents have substantial protection from prosecution
Fox News ^

Posted on 07/01/2024 7:48:23 AM PDT by Tench_Coxe

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.

The Court sent the matter back down to a lower court, as the justices did not apply the ruling to whether or not former President Trump is immune from prosecution regarding actions related to efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election.

(snip)

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: breaking; djt; donaldtrump; jacksmith; maga; scotus; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 next last
To: Tench_Coxe

RE: The Supreme Court ruled Monday in Trump v. United States that a former president has substantial immunity from prosecution for official acts committed while in office, but not for unofficial acts.

Which leads to the next question— were Trump’s actions during the election results dispute considered OFFICIAL or UNOFFICIAL?

The SCOTUS didn’t resolve this at all.


21 posted on 07/01/2024 8:29:39 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Deo volente

Justice Thomas is a national treasure. I pray that he has a long life and is willing to stay on the supreme court until his replacement can be a true constitutional conservative.


22 posted on 07/01/2024 8:30:48 AM PDT by Freee-dame ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tench_Coxe

Trump now only has one case tio worry about, the NY sentencing on 34 counts of July 11 but it may be that the sentencing wil have to be postponed becease the case depends on a predicate federal offence, which may yield immunity as a former president.


23 posted on 07/01/2024 8:42:08 AM PDT by Candor7 (Ask not for whom the Trump Trolls,He trolls for thee!),<img src="" width=500</img><a href="">tag</a>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mouton

However, it leaves it to anti-trump dc courts to decide whether anything is official or unofficial. In reading the opinion, I was left with the impression they considered the j6 rally an unofficial proceeding.


24 posted on 07/01/2024 8:46:16 AM PDT by xzins (Retired US Army chaplain. Support our troops by praying for their victory. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tench_Coxe

Great decision. Makes some inroads going forward into dismantling lawfare against a President performing official duties by disallowing the lawfare folks and judges from prosecuting Presidents for political motivation they do not like while performing those official duties. Might even be applicable to Foni Fanny’s Georgia case if Trump decides to raise the immunity issue down there.


25 posted on 07/01/2024 8:48:15 AM PDT by chuckee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CA Conservative

Yes, healthy delays, well past elections.

The SC says no one has determined what is a constitutional action vs. unconstitutional, and sent it back to the lower court, but no court would begin to create a list of what actions belong in which category.

Every questioned action going forward will need to be singularly judicated.


26 posted on 07/01/2024 8:49:38 AM PDT by chiller (Davey Crockett said: "Be sure you're right. Then go ahead'. I'll go ahead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Candor7
Re: "...a predicate federal offense, which may yield immunity as a former president."

A very sharp insight, Candor.

I completely missed that.

Was there even a predicate "act" by Trump?

Nothing that was proved at trial, from my perspective.

27 posted on 07/01/2024 9:00:41 AM PDT by zeestephen (Trump "Lost" By 43,000 Votes - Spread Across Three States - GA, WI, AZ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Tench_Coxe

How much were Biden’s actions considered in this ruling? Biden has been even worse with disregarding court rulings or attacking a ruling from another direction. The Supreme Court needs to also product current and future Presidents. If not then watch out!


28 posted on 07/01/2024 9:08:38 AM PDT by Lockbox (politicians, they all seemed like game show hosts to me.... Sting…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tench_Coxe
I forced myself to switch over to CNN to see if they’d be engaged in a mass suicide on live TV.

Instead, I listened to Van Jones pontificate on how this decision will now energize the Dem base.

So, it’s a great day for Biden and his party, dontcha know.

29 posted on 07/01/2024 9:09:56 AM PDT by daler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chiller
President Trump's J6 speech is already protected by U.S. Code as not being inciting a riot, but nobody brought it up to SCOTUS.

According to this section of the US Code, President Trump's speech on January 6 didn't even meet the definition of incitement to riot. How can it then meet the definition of obstructing a government proceeding?

In 18 U.S. Code Chapter 102 - RIOTS, specifically 18 U.S. Code § 2102 - Definitions, is this:

(b) As used in this chapter, the term “to incite a riot”, or “to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot”, includes, but is not limited to, urging or instigating other persons to riot, but shall not be deemed to mean the mere oral or written (1) advocacy of ideas or (2) expression of belief, not involving advocacy of any act or acts of violence or assertion of the rightness of, or the right to commit, any such act or acts.
President Trump spoke of his belief that he won the election, and then asked the attendees to peacefully walk to the Capitol to show the lawmakers their support for President Trump. That meets the exception to the "to incite a riot" definition.

The actual rioters who broke in the Capitol must defend their own actions, but US Code says that President Trump's actions did not incite these people to act.

President Trump's speech on January 6 didn't meet the federal definition of incitement to riot. How can it then meet the definition of obstructing a government proceeding?

-PJ

30 posted on 07/01/2024 9:24:02 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Political Junkie Too

if only you and me could sit on a DC jury


31 posted on 07/01/2024 9:30:54 AM PDT by chiller (Davey Crockett said: "Be sure you're right. Then go ahead'. I'll go ahead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Tench_Coxe

“My kickbacks from the Chicoms, Ukes, Romanians, et al, were the result of my official actions, so screw you.”


32 posted on 07/01/2024 9:32:51 AM PDT by VanShuyten ("...that all the donkeys were dead. I know nothing as to the fate of the less valuable animals.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tench_Coxe

Anything short of murdering someone or robbing a bank, everything the President does while in office is official.


33 posted on 07/01/2024 9:34:17 AM PDT by Signalman (I am not a snob. Ask anyone who matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zeestephen

Nothing that was proved at trial, from my perspective. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

But that predicate was in the indictement or in the prosecutions closing argument.

Its a huge mess.It will be in the courts for the next three years or more.


34 posted on 07/01/2024 9:38:44 AM PDT by Candor7 (Ask not for whom the Trump Trolls,He trolls for thee!),<img src="" width=500</img><a href="">tag</a>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Signalman

I would guess that actual treason would still be prosecutable ... but maybe not.


35 posted on 07/01/2024 10:00:54 AM PDT by RainMan ((Democrats ... making war against America since April 12, 1861))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tench_Coxe

AOC to File ‘Articles of Impeachment’ Following Supreme Court Immunity Ruling: ‘Corruption Crisis Beyond Its Control’

https://www.mediaite.com/politics/aoc-to-file-articles-of-impeachment-following-supreme-court-immunity-ruling-corruption-crisis-beyond-its-control/


36 posted on 07/01/2024 10:02:48 AM PDT by Brown Deer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tench_Coxe
This also obliterates nympho Fani’s Georgia RICO case. All those official communications to various Trump aids being snared are official business oriented too.

Not only that, the Georgia Supremes are going to kick her off the case, and no prosecutor will take it up from there.

I predict those that already plead guilty will also ask for subsequent judgement.

37 posted on 07/01/2024 10:04:11 AM PDT by Alas Babylon! (Repeal the Patriot Act; Abolish the DHS; reform FBI top to bottom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RainMan

Not while IN OFFICE. There must be an impeachment, conviction and removal first, then once they are removed, prosecute until your hearts’ content


38 posted on 07/01/2024 10:10:26 AM PDT by jpp113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Yes I saw it that way too.


39 posted on 07/01/2024 10:23:49 AM PDT by Mouton (A 150MT hit may not solve our problems now but is a good start. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: chiller

Trump can (and has) counter spun his J6 actions were official, part of his duty to see that the law was correctly and faithfully observed. There’s no way one can say overseeing federal election law is an exception to that. Yes, he’s wearing multiple hats with overlapping interests, but that is inevitable for the Executive the Framers provided.


40 posted on 07/01/2024 10:43:15 AM PDT by JohnBovenmyer (Biden/Harris events are called dodo ops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-60 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson